65,000+ Unconfirmed Transactions, Why?

[Dudeperfect]

Hello Folks,

Recently we had transactions traffic jam and now again, I can see 65,000+ unconfirmed transactions.

Source : Blockchain

I would like to ask the experts that why this is happening again and again? What can we do to avoid this in future without paying higher transaction fees?

Best
Dudeperfect

[DannyHamilton]

I would like to ask the experts that why this is happening again and again?

There is a limit to the number of transactions that can be confirmed in a block.  Any transactions that don't make it in have to wait for a later block.  If there are continuously more transactions created than will fit in the next block, then a backlog of unconfirmed transactions builds up until less transactions are created. Since solo miners and mining pools get to choose the transactions that they want to include in the blocks they are working on, and since solo miners and mining pools get to keep the transaction fees of the transactions that they include in the block that they solve, you can create an incentive for your transaction to be included in the next block by paying a higher transaction fee. Those that choose not to pay a higher fee will have to wait until there are less transactions before they will get confirmed.  As the average fee goes up, people will stop creating as many transactions (since they are either not getting confirmed or they feel the fee is too expensive).  This will reduce the number of transactions created and the backlog can catch up again.

What can we do to avoid this in future

Pay a higher transaction fee.

without paying higher transaction fees?

Oh.  In that case, don't use bitcoin when there is a large backlog of high fee paying transactions.

[jacaf01]

This is a serious issue and need to come up with a solution soon, I need to pay 65000sat to move 0.21BTC because the first two transactions was stalked for hours and not confirmed.

[DannyHamilton]

This is a serious issue and need to come up with a solution soon, I need to pay 65000sat to move 0.21BTC because the first two transactions was stalked for hours and not confirmed.

This is the solution.

Bitcoin is currently designed to force users into a "fee war".  The idea is that those who really want to use bitcoin will be willing to pay the fee.  If bitcoin isn't important enough for a user's needs, then the fee will discourage them so they will go elsewhere.  The assumption is that the system will eventually reach an equilibrium where the fees are high enough to keep the transaction volume at nearly always full blocks.

It will be interesting to see if that equilibrium actually occurs, or if the whole system collapses as users all flock to some other system.  Either way, it's going to be fun to watch this experiment unfold.

[bitcampaign]

I think this issue is not yet resolved, but it is good before sending bitcoin we also need to know where the rush hour queues transaction has not been confirmed, I can only advise you to visit this site

https://www.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/

you need to enter your id tx there to be processed immediately confirm and see here https://blockchain.info/

if you've seen them VIABTC active as well, please enter your id tx, note

Relayed By: VIABTC

you can try that way, hopefully useful

[megashira1]

Been 8 hours and my transaction is still hanging .. How do i know how much of a fee i need in to get my transactions through fast?

[Amph]

paying the right fee is ok but if a number(equal to the maximum tx per block) of other people pay more than you they will get their transaction sent faster, unless you pay more than them and so on

so in the end fee does not even matter you will always have TX in queue because of the block limit, and nothing can be done until they solve that

[zend7]

This is a serious issue and need to come up with a solution soon, I need to pay 65000sat to move 0.21BTC because the first two transactions was stalked for hours and not confirmed.

This is the solution.

Bitcoin is currently designed to force users into a "fee war".  The idea is that those who really want to use bitcoin will be willing to pay the fee.  If bitcoin isn't important enough for a user's needs, then the fee will discourage them so they will go elsewhere.  The assumption is that the system will eventually reach an equilibrium where the fees are high enough to keep the transaction volume at nearly always full blocks.

It will be interesting to see if that equilibrium actually occurs, or if the whole system collapses as users all flock to some other system.  Either way, it's going to be fun to watch this experiment unfold.

This is it. By paying maximum fee of any wallet you will not wait that much. And 65000 satoshi 0.00065 BTC is not much is only 0.65 USD with the current Bitcoin price to move 210 USD or 0.21 BTC. I will gladly pay that fee because Bitcoin to me is very important. I never have such problems when using my wallets Electrum or HW.1 as I always pay higher than recommended fee. These threads are becoming more and more common , this problem can be solved with the higher fees.

[Carlsen]

I suppose this is some kind of spam effort, and not a natural growth of bitcoin transactions.
Maybe somebody is trying to bring the bitcoin price down by delaying the confirmation times.
Or a segwit supporter tries to show the importance of the segregated witness soft-fork.

[Blind Legs Parker]

I would like to ask the experts that why this is happening again and again?

Simple: Bitcoin is the victim of its popularity and we're reaching a point where the total weight of all transactions is such that blocks are full. That happens indirectly when the number of transactions increase, which in turn happens when new users join the bitcoin club.
From this point on there are three solutions: (1) either you're satisfied with the current situation and you accept to pay higher fees without doing anything (said fees will get higher and higher as new users arrive, until the point where they will be so high that no new users will join anymore, and then they'll reach a high and stabilize but there's no saying where and when this will happen), either (2) you join the big blocks club, or (3) you support segwit and the lightning network. Pick your side but pick wisely: each of them have their lot of downsides and advantages.

I personally advise against choice #2 as a hard fork would be disastrous for the unity of the network. We've recently had a glimpse of what would happen in case of a hard fork when one of them happened between ETH and ETC. Since it's happened most big blocks supporters seem to have stopped supporting them too. I mean, it would be open warfare between BTC and its fork and I'm sure that as an investor you and your money don't want to be caught in such an apocalypse. Also, as blocks would get bigger, security concerns would arise.

[pinkflower]

This is a serious issue and need to come up with a solution soon, I need to pay 65000sat to move 0.21BTC because the first two transactions was stalked for hours and not confirmed.

This is the solution.

Bitcoin is currently designed to force users into a "fee war".  The idea is that those who really want to use bitcoin will be willing to pay the fee.  If bitcoin isn't important enough for a user's needs, then the fee will discourage them so they will go elsewhere.  The assumption is that the system will eventually reach an equilibrium where the fees are high enough to keep the transaction volume at nearly always full blocks.

It will be interesting to see if that equilibrium actually occurs, or if the whole system collapses as users all flock to some other system.  Either way, it's going to be fun to watch this experiment unfold.

Fee war. So meaning we could possibly reach a 25 usd dollar in fees per transaction?

Theres a guy here who kept hyping LTC and that it will activate segwit and that everyone will start using the altcoin. I did my research and found that segwit activation in LTC is under 3%. Thats worse than BTC. I dont think the LTC cares about segwit.

[kiklo]

This is a serious issue and need to come up with a solution soon, I need to pay 65000sat to move 0.21BTC because the first two transactions was stalked for hours and not confirmed.

This is the solution.

Bitcoin is currently designed to force users into a "fee war".  The idea is that those who really want to use bitcoin will be willing to pay the fee.  If bitcoin isn't important enough for a user's needs, then the fee will discourage them so they will go elsewhere.  The assumption is that the system will eventually reach an equilibrium where the fees are high enough to keep the transaction volume at nearly always full blocks.

It will be interesting to see if that equilibrium actually occurs, or if the whole system collapses as users all flock to some other system.  Either way, it's going to be fun to watch this experiment unfold.

This is it. By paying maximum fee of any wallet you will not wait that much. And 65000 satoshi 0.00065 BTC is not much is only 0.65 USD with the current Bitcoin price to move 210 USD or 0.21 BTC. I will gladly pay that fee because Bitcoin to me is very important. I never have such problems when using my wallets Electrum or HW.1 as I always pay higher than recommended fee. These threads are becoming more and more common , this problem can be solved with the higher fees.

$0.65 USD
is
Indonesian Rupiah= 8655.14    
Hungarian Forint   =   187.00305
Indian Rupee       =     43.59199
Russian Rouble     =    38.26427
Thai Baht             =    22.72849

BTC lost the micropayment utility last year,
with the latest fees increase it will start losing the foreign markets.

With LTC @$4.07,  I can move 210 US$ /  51.59 LTC and my transaction fee will be 0.00010000 LTC
which = $ .000407  

With LTC , you are paying less than one tenth of a penny and with BTC you are Paying OVER 1597X .

Sorry that just borders on Stupidity to waste that much on BTC transfers fees.  

If the blocksize is not increased soon, we are all watching BTC's death spiral.

 

[kiklo]

Fee war. So meaning we could possibly reach a 25 usd dollar in fees per transaction?

Theres a guy here who kept hyping LTC and that it will activate segwit and that everyone will start using the altcoin. I did my research and found that segwit activation in LTC is under 3%. Thats worse than BTC. I dont think the LTC cares about segwit.

LTC already has 4X the Onchain Transactions Capacity of BTC without segwit, LTC does not need it.

BTC would have to upgrade to a 4 megabyte BlockSize to just Match LTC current Capacity.


 

[zend7]

Fee war. So meaning we could possibly reach a 25 usd dollar in fees per transaction?

Theres a guy here who kept hyping LTC and that it will activate segwit and that everyone will start using the altcoin. I did my research and found that segwit activation in LTC is under 3%. Thats worse than BTC. I dont think the LTC cares about segwit.

LTC already has 4X the Onchain Transactions Capacity of BTC without segwit, LTC does not need it.

BTC would have to upgrade to a 4 megabyte BlockSize to just Match LTC current Capacity.


 

It's not a good comparison that between LTC and BTC. BTC price is currently over 1000 USD where LTC price is stuck from ages from what I see in exchanges (as LTC is the only coin I was never interested in, actually I am mining Zcash) to about 6-7 USD. BTC user base is huge where LTC user base is not that big that's why in LTC you pay low fees. People who accept bitcoin are much more than people who accept Litecoin. You should agree with the "fees" if you want to use it, if not then don't use it, as simple as this.

[Amph]

Fee war. So meaning we could possibly reach a 25 usd dollar in fees per transaction?

Theres a guy here who kept hyping LTC and that it will activate segwit and that everyone will start using the altcoin. I did my research and found that segwit activation in LTC is under 3%. Thats worse than BTC. I dont think the LTC cares about segwit.

LTC already has 4X the Onchain Transactions Capacity of BTC without segwit, LTC does not need it.

BTC would have to upgrade to a 4 megabyte BlockSize to just Match LTC current Capacity.


 

only because of faster confirmations(2.5 minutes), not because they forked to 4mb or whatever, and we know that faster confirmation lead to orphan litecoin is still plagued by it, unless they recently introduced soemthign like subchain...

[kiklo]

It's not a good comparison that between LTC and BTC. BTC price is currently over 1000 USD where LTC price is stuck from ages from what I see in exchanges (as LTC is the only coin I was never interested in, actually I am mining Zcash) to about 6-7 USD. BTC user base is huge where LTC user base is not that big that's why in LTC you pay low fees. People who accept bitcoin are much more than people who accept Litecoin. You should agree with the "fees" if you want to use it, if not then don't use it, as simple as this.

It is an accurate comparison , only a fool will pay 65 cents when they can receive the exact same service for .0004 of a cent.
BTC acceptance will decline if these fees are not brought to more competitive ranges.
Simple as that.


 

FYI:
As far as just obeying to Pay Higher & Higher Fees.

Only a Slave Obeys.

A Free Man will Choose.

[kiklo]

Fee war. So meaning we could possibly reach a 25 usd dollar in fees per transaction?

Theres a guy here who kept hyping LTC and that it will activate segwit and that everyone will start using the altcoin. I did my research and found that segwit activation in LTC is under 3%. Thats worse than BTC. I dont think the LTC cares about segwit.

LTC already has 4X the Onchain Transactions Capacity of BTC without segwit, LTC does not need it.

BTC would have to upgrade to a 4 megabyte BlockSize to just Match LTC current Capacity.


 

only because of faster confirmations(2.5 minutes), not because they forked to 4mb or whatever, and we know that faster confirmation lead to orphan litecoin is still plagued by it, unless they recently introduced soemthign like subchain...

I use LTC all of the time, orphans have never been an issue,
the only issue that is a pain in the ass , is BTC excessive fees and extremely slow transfers.

 

[pooya87]

Simple: Bitcoin is the victim of its popularity

actually bitcoin is a victim of 2 things:
the politics which are preventing us from moving forward in scaling bitcoin
and the spam attacks that are increasing the backlog to unrealistic numbers.

I personally advise against choice #2 as a hard fork would be disastrous for the unity of the network. We've recently had a glimpse of what would happen in case of a hard fork when one of them happened between ETH and ETC. Since it's happened most big blocks supporters seem to have stopped supporting them too. I mean, it would be open warfare between BTC and its fork and I'm sure that as an investor you and your money don't want to be caught in such an apocalypse. Also, as blocks would get bigger, security concerns would arise.

hard forks are not something to fear. if they are done right it is actually good and bitcoin has already have at least one hard fork in the past.
and you are comparing bitcoin's hard fork with an altcoin hard fork that was performed in a wrong way without consensus the developers of eth one day decided they need to hard fork eth and then did it without reaching consensus among all so they ended up with two chains.
if bitcoin or any other project follows that path they will end up with disasters too.

but it if a big "if"... and so far as i know the consensus with bitcoin is more than 95%

[687_2]

This is a serious issue and need to come up with a solution soon, I need to pay 65000sat to move 0.21BTC because the first two transactions was stalked for hours and not confirmed.

This is the solution.

Bitcoin is currently designed to force users into a "fee war".  The idea is that those who really want to use bitcoin will be willing to pay the fee.  If bitcoin isn't important enough for a user's needs, then the fee will discourage them so they will go elsewhere.  The assumption is that the system will eventually reach an equilibrium where the fees are high enough to keep the transaction volume at nearly always full blocks.

It will be interesting to see if that equilibrium actually occurs, or if the whole system collapses as users all flock to some other system.  Either way, it's going to be fun to watch this experiment unfold.

I can't wait for all these people who are clogging up the forums with clueless and irreverent posts about block sizes and other technical issues (and who are obviously not engineers, not here to learn, and also probably own little to no Bitcoin) to emigrate.

[Carlton Banks]

This is a serious issue and need to come up with a solution soon, I need to pay 65000sat to move 0.21BTC because the first two transactions was stalked for hours and not confirmed.

This is the solution.

Bitcoin is currently designed to force users into a "fee war".  The idea is that those who really want to use bitcoin will be willing to pay the fee.  If bitcoin isn't important enough for a user's needs, then the fee will discourage them so they will go elsewhere.  The assumption is that the system will eventually reach an equilibrium where the fees are high enough to keep the transaction volume at nearly always full blocks.

It will be interesting to see if that equilibrium actually occurs, or if the whole system collapses as users all flock to some other system.  Either way, it's going to be fun to watch this experiment unfold.

Fee war. So meaning we could possibly reach a 25 usd dollar in fees per transaction?

Don't worry, Danny's not in favour of Bitcoin's fee market, so he's using the most emotional language he can, hoping that no-one notices him slipping political rhetoric into his otherwise prosaic, technical language.

Fork war, anyone? Danny?